Germain Grisez' metaetik: En komparativ studie mot bakgrund av Aristoteles och Kant
(2019) TLVM51 20191Studies in Faith and World Views
Centre for Theology and Religious Studies
- Abstract
- The aim of this thesis is to explain the widely different opinions about the Catholic Professor of Christian Ethics Germain Grisez's (1929-2018) ethics. While some commentators see his ethics as legalistic and deontologic, others think that it’s anti-legalistic and eudaimonic. The Aristotelian and Kantian positions are drawn upon as frames of reference.
The focus of the thesis is Grisez's answer to the question "What makes a good act good?" This question is divided into "what’s good in itself" and "which principle decides which acts are good". Unlike both Aristotle and Kant, Grisez holds several categories of things as good in themselves (basic human goods in his terminology).
Grisez's opinion about which principle decides which acts... (More) - The aim of this thesis is to explain the widely different opinions about the Catholic Professor of Christian Ethics Germain Grisez's (1929-2018) ethics. While some commentators see his ethics as legalistic and deontologic, others think that it’s anti-legalistic and eudaimonic. The Aristotelian and Kantian positions are drawn upon as frames of reference.
The focus of the thesis is Grisez's answer to the question "What makes a good act good?" This question is divided into "what’s good in itself" and "which principle decides which acts are good". Unlike both Aristotle and Kant, Grisez holds several categories of things as good in themselves (basic human goods in his terminology).
Grisez's opinion about which principle decides which acts are good, is that these acts are chosen voluntarily from a will that’s compatible with a will toward the fulfillment of everything that’s good in itself for the whole human community. He thinks that it can never be good to intentionally harm something that’s good in itself, even as a means of promoting some other good. For Grisez who bases the moral values solely on moral intent, already the intention to do and strive for the good by evil means is a contradiction. For this intention must include the intention of the evil means (i.e. the intention to harm something good in itself) and so cannot be good according to Grisez.
Most of the criticism against Grisez, including that pleasure and/or autonomy should be held as something good in itself, is argued to be based on more consequentialist assumptions than Grisez’s own. Given Grisez's will-centered viewpoint, this criticism therefore becomes easy to dismiss. But it’s also possible to argue in the other direction. That is, if there would be an irrefutable argumentation that pleasure or autonomy is good in itself, then, according to the argumentation in this study, Grisez's will-centered viewpoint must be wrong. It’s argued that no such argumentation has been presented by Grisez's opponents.
That Grisez is seen by some to be closest to virtue ethics and by others as a deontologist, is shown to depend on whether one considers the goal of ethics, which lies close to the virtue ethics, or its practical design, which is of a more deontological nature. Finally, it’s argued that Grisez's ethical system should be seen as an intentionalist ethics with elements of deontology. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9150309
- author
- Samnegård, Ola LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- TLVM51 20191
- year
- 2019
- type
- H1 - Master's Degree (One Year)
- subject
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9150309
- date added to LUP
- 2024-09-18 13:41:06
- date last changed
- 2024-09-18 13:41:06
@misc{9150309,
abstract = {{The aim of this thesis is to explain the widely different opinions about the Catholic Professor of Christian Ethics Germain Grisez's (1929-2018) ethics. While some commentators see his ethics as legalistic and deontologic, others think that it’s anti-legalistic and eudaimonic. The Aristotelian and Kantian positions are drawn upon as frames of reference.
The focus of the thesis is Grisez's answer to the question "What makes a good act good?" This question is divided into "what’s good in itself" and "which principle decides which acts are good". Unlike both Aristotle and Kant, Grisez holds several categories of things as good in themselves (basic human goods in his terminology).
Grisez's opinion about which principle decides which acts are good, is that these acts are chosen voluntarily from a will that’s compatible with a will toward the fulfillment of everything that’s good in itself for the whole human community. He thinks that it can never be good to intentionally harm something that’s good in itself, even as a means of promoting some other good. For Grisez who bases the moral values solely on moral intent, already the intention to do and strive for the good by evil means is a contradiction. For this intention must include the intention of the evil means (i.e. the intention to harm something good in itself) and so cannot be good according to Grisez.
Most of the criticism against Grisez, including that pleasure and/or autonomy should be held as something good in itself, is argued to be based on more consequentialist assumptions than Grisez’s own. Given Grisez's will-centered viewpoint, this criticism therefore becomes easy to dismiss. But it’s also possible to argue in the other direction. That is, if there would be an irrefutable argumentation that pleasure or autonomy is good in itself, then, according to the argumentation in this study, Grisez's will-centered viewpoint must be wrong. It’s argued that no such argumentation has been presented by Grisez's opponents.
That Grisez is seen by some to be closest to virtue ethics and by others as a deontologist, is shown to depend on whether one considers the goal of ethics, which lies close to the virtue ethics, or its practical design, which is of a more deontological nature. Finally, it’s argued that Grisez's ethical system should be seen as an intentionalist ethics with elements of deontology.}},
author = {{Samnegård, Ola}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Germain Grisez' metaetik: En komparativ studie mot bakgrund av Aristoteles och Kant}},
year = {{2019}},
}